Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/14/2003 5:46:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2003 8:57:45 PM EDT by Mr45auto]
My first test of my colt AR15 uppered frankengun and my Romanian Sar1 AK. This was in the snow, both guns were dry, no lube to thicken and gum up in the snow. I buried the rifles up to the muzzle in the snow and let em sit for about 20 minutes. I fired a string of 30 rounds from each both using wolf ammo for this outing (forgot the XM193 at home) I'd then reload and re bury the rifle with the dust covers closed. After another 20 mins I'd light em up again. By the fourth mag I decided the snow wasnt gonna be much of a factor for either rifle. I continued shooting them for the hell of it, hey I like to shoot em ;) Anyhow after about 200 rounds of dry shooting the AR quit firing. I had light firing pin strikes and pulled the carrier. The firing pin had pretty much been stopped by the gunk and crap built up in the bolt. I'd assume this was because wolf is extremely dirty ammo and the gun was dry. Not really fair for the AR but it was out of action. This is something I never considered would be a problem. My AK did have a jam once but the magazine follower stuck in the middle of the curved mag and the ammo sat loose not being fed into the rifle. This was purely a magazine failure not the rifle. First round of this somewhat un realistic reliablility test seems a draw. Although simply changing mags would have the AK back in the fight. We'll see what happens with a few other tests and the proper ammo in each rifle.


Edited to add: read my post a bit further down... it wasnt as clean as I thought...
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 6:25:21 PM EDT
The AR will never be as reliable as an AK in adverse field conditions... period.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 6:31:51 PM EDT
Save your ammo. The AK will operate through about anything, and the AR needs reasonable care. I have always believed if I had to rely on the AR in very dirty conditions, I would use it dry, hoping I didn't have to fire enough to really heat it up (probably not a realistic assumption for a battle rifle). I have shot my AR and my Bulgarian SLR 101 AK a fair amount. I find it interesting that they were both designed for the same thing, because they are very different rifles. I can hit stuff with surprising regularity at 300 yards with the AR. But, if I had to rely on one of them to keep me alive at close quarters, under any conditions on earth, it would be the AK. And as a bonus, it's got an operating handle where it's supposed to be! I really do love the AR as a sporting rifle, but when I think of its adoption as our general purpose battle rifle, I think the wrong folks made that decision for the wrong reasons.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:33:13 PM EDT
!!!coughM-14cough!!![:D]
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:33:49 PM EDT
I personally would as of now grab my 20" AR over my AK any time. Hit potential is my number one concern. I really doubt you'd fire that dang much in one sitting. I'd also hope you had better ammo than Wolf. This is the first time I've had any malfunctions of ANY sort with this AR. This test did open up my eyes to a potential trouble spot with the design though. I never suspected this sort of malfunction. I'll see though about how they will perform in a couple more tests. Still to come is sand and mud. I'll try to get to these in the next couple weekends. IMHO the AK needs a better sighting system to be a great rifle, the current system is pretty much worthless for any distance.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:45:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By elh0102: Save your ammo. The AK will operate through about anything, and the AR needs reasonable care. I have always believed if I had to rely on the AR in very dirty conditions, I would use it dry, hoping I didn't have to fire enough to really heat it up (probably not a realistic assumption for a battle rifle). I have shot my AR and my Bulgarian SLR 101 AK a fair amount. I find it interesting that they were both designed for the same thing, because they are very different rifles. I can hit stuff with surprising regularity at 300 yards with the AR. But, if I had to rely on one of them to keep me alive at close quarters, under any conditions on earth, it would be the AK. And as a bonus, it's got an operating handle where it's supposed to be! I really do love the AR as a sporting rifle, but when I think of its adoption as our general purpose battle rifle, I think the wrong folks made that decision for the wrong reasons.
View Quote
Yeah really! It's amazing we've won all those battles using the AR[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:47:48 PM EDT
We didnt win with Frankengun ARs. We win with Mil-spec government contract M16s and M4s.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:56:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2003 8:00:45 PM EDT by Mr45auto]
To clear it up, the frankengun only means a cheapo lower with a 100% colt upper half and mil spec parts in the lower. The lower itself is a cheap cast piece I had sitting around waiting to mate up to something worthwile. The Colt (upper)has always been 100% and has NEVER malfunctioned before this run, btw I've shot over 5K with it.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:57:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Blackjack272: !!!coughM-14cough!!![:D]
View Quote
Im workin on it,well M1A but you got to give a Dog some time! Geeeezz Anyways 200 rounds seems low,..Whenever i have a bunch of buddys going to the range i Allways bring lots of wolf! bring two or three buds along and they can put down the AK'S and SKS's and burn up 700-800 rounds of Wolf.223 in no time...Not trying to start a "Wolf sucks" thread so forgive me please...But then agian i dont run my AR dry either.....UNDERDOG
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:58:24 PM EDT
well said lumpy..ive gone 1500 rounds of wolf straight in a snow burried previously factory pre ban bushmaster carbine and never got that kind stoppage.Maybe the gunk was there before you did your test.Routine maintenence would have prevented that,I dont care how dirty wolf is your not going to get enough build up after 200 rounds to gunk up a bolt firing pin channel,had to already been dirty from previously shooting.Now well get into the its "proof" the AK can go longer dirtier wich is probably true but it also proves with regular maintenence the AR wont fail and if your gonig to stake your life on any rifle you should clean it regular so it always functions at its optimum.Have also shot in the pouring rain and no failures.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:44:36 PM EDT
Well hoping not to look like too much of an idiot... I took the AR apart to clean her up and it was pretty nasty inside. After pulling it all apart it is far dirtier than I could get from a couple hundred rounds, I realized what happened here: I cleaned up my rifles a couple weeks back after a good weekend of shooting and it seems I didnt do much more than wipe it (the aforementioned AR) down. My other AR got a thorough cleaning as did my AK and other rifles. The carrier was dry after the wipedown and I just plain didnt check that this rifle was ready to run. It's been a hectic month so far.... I plan to retest shooting this AR when dry with the wolf and see what happens. Yeah, I'm a dork...
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 9:23:40 PM EDT
I just think its cool that you are performing this test. Im sure you do not hold one gun higher than the other and you are trying to give us a fair review of your testing. I love the AR but Im sure the Ak will hold up better in the test as far as operating in adverse conditions. As far as what shoots better as in accuracy we all know that also. That's why we all own the AR. But thank you for beating the shit out of your rifles and relaying your finds!
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 9:41:41 PM EDT
M-16A4: High maintenance spouse. You need to show it a good time and keep it happy. If you do, it'll sing the sweetest song to you as you hit your targets out to 800 yards. Ak-74: Cheap date. Easy to keep happy. You can neglect it, and abuse it, and it'll still be there. Easy to handle, and always ready. Good for short range hits. Built to be used by uneducated conscript soldiers. Both have they're strong sides and weak sides. It's all up to user.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 11:01:51 PM EDT
Blast from the past... [url]http://www.valmet-weapons.com/Torture_Test_Page1.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:12:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 3:13:21 AM EDT by DevL]
Why dont you use moderate lube like the AR requires? Do you normally use Wolf for defense? If not the use of Wolf has nothing to do with reliability of your carry load. Leaving no lube in the AR makes it about as fair as putting super glue in the SAR. What is the default ammo and lube on your weapons? Use those. Everything else means nothing. You have essentially told us not to use Wolf in our ARs and the AR needs soem lube. Gee, I would never have been able to figure that one out... [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 4:47:43 AM EDT
Andrew, yes, battles have been won with the M16. But, should that be our only criteria? I don't think so. I can only speak from personal experience. As much as I enjoy shooting my AR, I am convinced that neither the operating system nor the cartridge is the best for a general battle rifle. Comparatively speaking, the AK is a blunt instrument, but it's very effective at personal combat distances. I think the average field soldier would express primary concern about their weapon's reliability and effectiveness under 50 yards.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 7:55:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 7:56:22 AM EDT by Ridge]
I find it interesting that this failure was not related to the gas system, which everyone contributes to the weakness of the AR. Basically the weapon failed due to gumming up with the sub par ammo, most certainly directly related to, non lubrication, and the tighter tolerences of the AR15, which in turn highly contributes to the excellent accuracy of the AR15/M16. So, what is boils down to is...are you willing to provide a little more maintanence to keep a very accurate weapon functioning. Or do you want to loosen up the tolerences, forget maintanence, and not hit anything? (I'll choose slightly more maintanence and keep the tight tolerances, thank you). Incidently, I (and I'm sure many others) have shot [b]WAY[/b] more than 200 rounds of wolf through our ARs and not experience any problems (I do admit, I always use a little lube).
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:12:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr45auto: ...and mil spec parts in the lower.
View Quote
The only 'mil spec' parts that could be in the lower would be full-auto M16 parts. So are you saying you have an illegal M16?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:41:44 AM EDT
The guy is just trying to share his experience. We don't need bust his balls, and did you have to use the "i" word. Uncool. However, I think you are correct about the strict definition of mil-spec.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:43:38 AM EDT
Sorry ladies and gentlemen, but a rifle ain't worth shit if it is ammo or mag sensitive. You can't count on ideal operating environments. You can't count on a steady supply of your weapon's preferred ammo and you can't second guess whether or not it will like magazine A but not magazine B. As far as accuracy goes, I have seen 5.45x39 AKs that will shoot every bit as accurately as a stock AR. Bottom line, you can't make an AK stop functioning, at least I have been unable to. ARs fails for a variety of reasons... too much lube, too little lube, doesn't like this ammo, doesn't like this mag, primer blew and jammed the bolt carrier to the upper receiver, gas system fouled... I have yet to see an AK ever fail to function as a result of the weapon. The only failures I have ever seen have been the extremely rare bad round that doesn't go bang. Pull the handle on the bolt carrier to manually eject and chamber a new round and you are back in business.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 9:36:57 AM EDT
I've been in the AK world for quite a while, and I've seen many AKs fail for a variety of reasons also. Most of the reasons being related to shit parts built by either the Romanians, the Russians from 1972-1976 (AKM only), and the Chinese... Not to mention NUMEROUS failures due to US parts. AKs fail too, and it's a fairly common occurence. -Cap'n
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:05:23 AM EDT
Well Hiram my AK failed (Russian AK folding stock with a milled reciver that I got from a Iraqi LtCol) me in a fire fight (it was actually an unblocked ambush, but still you get the point) outside of the town of Ad Dywanyia, Iraq on Mar 26th. Any weapon can fail, no matter what some people will claim.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:21:29 AM EDT
I have done my own tests, I own the AR. All the legendary reliability of the AK, which I have never seen BTW, will not do you any good if you can't hit your target. The AK is not accurate, not in 7.62x39. The AR is, it is also reliabile, more so than a lot of people believe. In just the last match I shot in, I personally saw 27 malfunctions in just one AK in the course of a day. Scott
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:33:23 AM EDT
A problem is a problem both had a problem in the field it is a problem. Imagine some crazy Iraqi coming a hill shooting at you and any problem would suck gun or clip. Your are dead.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:53:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Capn_Crunch: I've been in the AK world for quite a while, and I've seen many AKs fail for a variety of reasons also. Most of the reasons being related to shit parts built by either the Romanians, the Russians from 1972-1976 (AKM only), and the Chinese... Not to mention NUMEROUS failures due to US parts. AKs fail too, and it's a fairly common occurence. -Cap'n
View Quote
Fairly common occurence? Sorry, going to call bullshit on that. Can AK fail? Of course it can? Is an AR MORE likely to fail? Absolutely. As for shit parts, I've seen a lot of crap parts that have come out of Century in the SAR and other low end series AKs. Put decent US made parts on them and you won't have a problem. Trying to use the sub-standard US parts in certain AKs as your argument is destined to fail because I can just as easily point to crappy Hesse and American Spirit Arms ARs. Bottom line, a properly built AK-74 clone will be more reliable and just about as accurate as a well made AR. If you can't admit to yourself that the AK system is more robust and reliable then you are simply in a terrible state of denial. Now, is the AK as adaptable for configuration changes? Nope. Are there as many accessory options? There are a lot, but nowhere near as many. In these regards the AR is superior. However, if you want a weapon that will eat any ammo and feed from just about any mag then the AK is your weapon. I don't care how freakin accurate your AR is, if it won't shoot the ammo you have on hand, it is an aluminum and plastic club.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:59:59 AM EDT
AR please. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 11:44:03 AM EDT
Remember the guys who robbed the bank in LA with AKs? One was shot by the police and he bled to death, the other guys AK jammed after a few hundred rounds and he shot himself in the head with a handgun. If I had to choose between an AR15 or an AK I would choose both. Both might fail you so you should definatly have a backup. Besides, for the price of a Knights RAS for your AR you can buy an AK.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:22:40 PM EDT
I never said that the AR was as robust as the Kalashnikov, but neither system is anywhere near unreliable. The point is that under the same conditions that would render a modern M4/M16 inoperable, Kalashnikovs will more than likely suffer the same fate. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, they're the prime examples of this. Dust, sand, and mud will cause ANY gun to stop working, regardless of the designer's last name. The Kalashnikov is not perfect. Get over it. I'm a KCA member, and I did. -Cap'n
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:33:22 PM EDT
First of, thanks for doing the test!! I've been wanting to do an extensive side-by-side test of an AR vs AK for a long time, to the point of actually destroying the rifles by the end of the test. [:)] Anyway, I think any test like this is cool. As far as malfunctions, yes any gun can fail. That's why we learn how to clear a malfunction. If you carry an AK and figure it's never going to jam, what are you going to do when it *does* fail when you need it? Stand there with your dick in your hands crapping your pants, looking at your rifle?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:40:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By elh0102: ...And as a bonus, it's got an operating handle where it's supposed to be! ...
View Quote
The AR is ergonomically superior (safety & mag release are where they should be, it actually has a bolt hold/release). The charging handle is meant to be used with your left hand btw.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:44:31 PM EDT
If the ak74 was better and cheaper why is our gov useing the M16? they must like something about it ,and now we see yet another new design from h&k that will cost even more.I have both AKs and ARs and i prefer the AR .Given the right ammo,mags,and care I would have no problem depending on the AR. now if I was someone that knew nothing about firearms and needed to defend my self the ak it is .With the way things are going the AR is one of the few things we make in this country that is still world class ,I will be sad to see it go .
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 6:15:28 PM EDT
Umm my rifle is not mag or ammo sensitive. I use any USGI and it works. I use milspec ammo and it works. I use moderate CLP and it works. The idea than in 2024 I may run out of milspec ammo and my rifle will jam as we crest the final hill on our way to destroy the machines thaty have taken over the earth is a really silly idea to have in your head for rifle selection. There has never been and will never be a lack of milspec mags or ammo available to people in the US. Now like I said I want to know how the two would compare given REAL WORLD mags ammo and lube. I will never ever have no lube and Wolf in my rifle. Neither will anyone else. OH BTW the Wolf 7.62x39 is inferior in terms of terminal ballistics to the Q3131A that should have been used. I noticed someone tried to say otherwise earlier and even mentiond 50 yards and in. Also comparing the accuracy of a custom built AK74 clone vs a bone stock milspec M4 is not a fair comparison. My Milspec M4 shoots 1 MOA. Id like to see an AK74 clone that can do that from the factory.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 7:00:53 PM EDT
I'd like to have some input on how to best test the rifles. I planned to start with a clean and lubed (clp or LSA) rifle and fire appropriate ammo. For the AR it would be Q3131A or XM193 and for the AK I guess I'm limited to Wolf or ??? What do the former Com bloc or bad guy countries use for ammo? For the sake of economy I would run about 200 or so rounds in each test. I figure a couple mags at a fairly brisk firing rate followed by a couple as fast as possible. Other input would be appreciated. Remember I'm running on a budget here and dont plan to destroy my rifles...beat em up a little okay... not destroy. Btw, anyone local to NW Oregon or SW Washington is welcome to help out or add rifles to the mix or even supply some ammo ;)
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 7:47:39 PM EDT
Wolf and Barnaul for the AK. Thats what is commercially available here. Are we talking AK 47 clone or AK 74?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 7:59:06 PM EDT
AK47 romainian SAR1 7.62x39.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:31:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 8:36:13 PM EDT by _DR]
Lets not forget that the two rifles were designed with very different philosphies of warfare. The Soviets came out of World War Two with a very different experience than did the United States. In the early years of the war, Russian conscripts were often issues one Moisin-Nagant rifle for three men, with the instructions that when the man carrying the rifle fell, one of the other two was to pick it up and keep fighting, and so on. They wanted, as with all their equipment, something that was simple to mass-produce, simple to operate, and simple to maintain. It also had to be extremely tolerant of polar conditions and poor operator maintenance, much like the T34, arguably one of the best but crudest tanks ever built. The T34 tank crews actually had to help build their tanks on the assembly lines, Kalashnikov himself was a T34 driver and mechanic. He knew what the Soviet doctrine of warfare needed, and the AK47 was born of this thinking. Accuracy took a backseat to all these factors. American soldiers were raised in a culture where marksmanship was a revered skill, whether on the rifle range in competition or hunting game afield. The quest for new technology combined with the expectation of accuracy explains how we ended up with out present weaponry, and it in turn serves well in our doctrine of warfare. Who would have prevailed at the Fulda Gap had the hundreds of Warsaw Pact Tank and motorized rifle divisions launched the expected offensive, covering 100 miles a day by doctrine? We'll never know. But I think we would have seen the good and bad qualities of both the AKM and the M16 come out, it's the old quality vs quantity issue, and I personally believe it would have been strategy and leadership that made the difference, not what battle rifle they using.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:34:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr45auto: AK47 romainian SAR1 7.62x39.
View Quote
Actually, the SAR-1 is a close reproduction of the AKM variant, moreso than the AK47 which was the first variant. (I realize AK47 is used as a catch-all term for AK47s,AKMs,AK74s, etc, by many, especially the media).
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 12:10:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2003 12:11:11 AM EDT by DevL]
Although we realise the AKM has the stamped reciever and the AK47 has the milled reciever etc, etc. 47 genreally is used to designate 7.62x39 and 74 as the 5.45x39. Nit picking things like AKM/AK47, the AK74 didnt have a slanted gas block etc.. are more for the folks in the AK section to debate I think. I mean I didnt say muzzle break or 30 round clip now did I? [;)]
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 2:07:15 PM EDT
The biggest problem here is the fact that you have linmited your test to two rifles. Throw an FAL into the mix. I am sure the FAL would work as well if not better than the AK. The AR would of course beat it in accuracy department but the FAL would work long after the AR had stopped. I await any flames that may be coming my way.
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 2:34:07 PM EDT
Anyone who thinks my AKM isn't accurate, please wander out to the 100 yd line and we will resume the discussion... The bottom line is that both platforms have been around for 40+ years and have seen alot of combat. Both have proven to be fine combat weapons. We're just nit-picking here. In order to use either one effectively, you have to know the strengths and weaknesses of each system. To be blindly faithful to either is foolish. I own both and wouldn't feel inadequately armed with either.
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 6:20:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevL: Although we realise the AKM has the stamped reciever and the AK47 has the milled reciever etc, etc. 47 genreally is used to designate 7.62x39 and 74 as the 5.45x39. Nit picking things like AKM/AK47, the AK74 didnt have a slanted gas block etc.. are more for the folks in the AK section to debate I think. I mean I didnt say muzzle break or 30 round clip now did I? [;)]
View Quote
Yes, I was being Nit-picky :-)
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 6:42:34 PM EDT
Speaking of really sweet AK74's, does anyone own or have you sampled one from krebs or chris butler? Amazingly accurate with the recoil of a rimfire, most fun you'll ever have with a rifle hands down. Personally I wouldnt own an over the counter AK, but thats just me.
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 6:43:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Noname: Blast from the past... [url]http://www.valmet-weapons.com/Torture_Test_Page1.html[/url]
View Quote
Damn it, I LOVE that article!! [:D] BTW, I don't know who said it, but I agree
Quantity has a quality all its own.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 7:02:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr45auto: ... For the sake of economy I would run about 200 or so rounds in each test. I figure a couple mags at a fairly brisk firing rate followed by a couple as fast as possible. Other input would be appreciated. Remember I'm running on a budget here and dont plan to destroy my rifles...beat em up a little okay... not destroy. ...
View Quote
While I appreciate your efforts, you asked for input, so here goes. 200 rounds of M193 through a properly set up AR15, in semi and using good condition USGI mags, isn't really much of a test. If your AR15 fails the test you propose, I'd suggest that there's something wrong with your rifle, ammo or mags. Heck, there are guys on this board that have Beta's and FA rifles. Just my $0.02. Corey
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 8:29:26 PM EDT
I've got the beta, courtesy of Rueben but the FA is out of my price range. If you care to donate ammo I'll run as many as you want. Realistically thought I'm a private citizen like most here and have limited funds, again like most. I have a couple thousand XM 193 available and a couple thou Wolf 7.62x39 for the SAR1 if you come up with a test that wont eat all my ammo I'll be happy to run it.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 4:04:06 AM EDT
Rifles are machines built by man. Anything built by man can and will fail. Hopefully your machine will not fail when your life is on the line. Therefore it is to your advantage to properly maintain your chosen machine no matter what make it happens to be. Mr. Stoner worked in a system that valued technological solutions to any given challenge. Mr. Kalashnikov worked in a system with the philosophy that superior numbers will overcome technilogical superiority. The M16 was a techy design for the time and was put into service because of the opinion of one man, Robert McNamara. The AK was designed to be dummy proof. I believe the AK will see service much longer than the M16 will because it is a more robust design. Shabo
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 6:08:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2003 6:11:18 AM EDT by Corey]
Originally Posted By Mr45auto: I've got the beta, courtesy of Rueben but the FA is out of my price range. If you care to donate ammo I'll run as many as you want. Realistically thought I'm a private citizen like most here and have limited funds, again like most. I have a couple thousand XM 193 available and a couple thou Wolf 7.62x39 for the SAR1 if you come up with a test that wont eat all my ammo I'll be happy to run it.
View Quote
I think there are two prongs to reliability testing. 1. Dirty rifle tests -- Troy has a Bushmaster that has gone what, 7,500 or so rounds, without cleaning. Of course, he occassionally squirted some CLP on the bolt through the ejection port every now and again, but I consider that more of an emergency preventative maintenance action. I'm not sure running a test like this would be of much value. 2. Abuse tests -- It sounds like you don't want to throw your rifle into a swamp for a few days, and then let it sit propped up against the woodshed for another week (sans any maintenance or oiling) prior to firing. And I'm not sure that test is of much value either, as most people on this board have (or should have) a field cleaning kit. I don't think breaking down an AR15 once a day and giving the bolt and carrier a wipedown is that burdensome of a task as to make the AK series a more desirable rifle. So, I guess my bottom line is, you either have to throw the rifle off a building, run over it with a truck, and then bury it in the mud for a week or you'll not prove all that much. [;)] And even then I'm not really sure what the point of the test would be, as (if the rifle survived the fall) a competent rifleman would clean their mudcaked rifle, even if it was an AK varient. [:)] EDITED for typo.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:23:36 AM EDT
Wolf ammo!------------------[ROFL2]
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 9:31:40 AM EDT
I would like to see a really good test done amoung many different battle rifles: m4, ak47, fals, g3s, etc
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 11:31:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2003 11:32:47 AM EDT by Slowworm]
Originally Posted By sslocal: The biggest problem here is the fact that you have linmited your test to two rifles. Throw an FAL into the mix. I am sure the FAL would work as well if not better than the AK. The AR would of course beat it in accuracy department but the FAL would work long after the AR had stopped. I await any flames that may be coming my way.
View Quote
[url=http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91574]The story of old dirty.[/url] 5000 rounds and still going. The FAL is an MBR without equal in my book. The M14 is a better match/target rifle, but going into battle give me an FAL any day. Slowworm
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:47:01 PM EDT
Here we go again! I haven't seen one of these threads for a while - not since the XM8 has surfaced anyway[;D] Corey, you didn't happen to see the video of the AK being thrown off of the building, run over by a car, and then the mag emptied F/A did you [:D]? If you didn't I'm sure one of the AK guys has a link to it somewhere. They are both good rifles with different ideas behind their design (as many have stated before). Now, on with the test...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top